Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
The government or the church should not fool them, and manipulate them as salves. Hank points out that all of the taxes comes from these poor independent workers, neither the church nor the bishops pays slightly of it. Every single man of the family must work gratis for the lord and bishop, and no one ever denies this. Why? How come no one ever has the urge to stand up for them, to claim for what they deserve?
When looked at in comparison to an entrenched constitution it seems better as in an entrenched system, parliament would be unable to pass such reforms so easily as entrenching something makes it incredibly hard to change. On the other side of the argument, many would say that due to the UK having a constitution whereby the head of Parliament is also the Head of the executive and also with the government mostly having a majority in the House of Commons, it means that the Prime Minister can pass through any legislation that they really want to pass. This could be seen undemocratic of the UK. Moreover, due to the Parliamentary Act of 1949, the House of Lords are only able to delay legislation for one year before it becomes automatically passed. This means that the House of Lords are unable to act as the judiciary in rejecting and checking unwanted bills.
Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
It is a replication of the media's fantasy of the "real man" (tough guise). As the dominant male figure, he strives only for these few things but rarely succeeds in getting them because his wife makes most of the household decisions. During the entire episode, Ray is only seen doing housework once. Unfortunately, he is completely clueless as to what to do and Debbie has to take over. This clearly shows that even though Ray is the dominant one in the house, he is not required to do thing pertaining to housework and childcare.
What were the major arguments that surfaced in opposition to the new Constitution proposed in 1787? How did supporters of the Constitution counter those arguments? Before the Constitution was proposed in 1787, under the Articles of Confederation, there was no control of the country; debt was piling up and there was no enforcement of taxes. Many arguments surfaced in opposition to the new Constitution, but the main concern had to do with the concept of a “president” where there was a single executive leader and centralized government, and that there was no bill of rights. Supporters of the constitution countered these arguments by adding some safeguards in some cases and also by thoroughly explaining the limited powers that the leader and government would have and the necessity for a strong central government.
I do not think this qualifies as a just statement because Parliament only composed of British representatives, and no Colonist representatives, therefore, no Colonist could back up their viewpoint or dispute any taxes enforced, only the British would have say in what would be a just or unjust tax. In addition, many of the British, who moved to the New World, inherited new ways of life and were no longer under the influence from the English—with a new
The Party seeks power for its own sake. Its power is absolute and no one is able to challenge it. It keep it masses in isolation from one another, making them unable to compare them themselves to other societies. There is no other reason for power except to maintain power. • “If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man.” Book 3, Chapter III Page 270.
The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals. To conclude I would say that neither Partisan Alignment nor party allegiance related to class is what convinces the electorate of the presence. For sure both of these factors are still there in the voting behavior of the United Kingdom but very rare. The modern, educated and open-minded voters do not want to be related to a party because of their social class, they want to decide completely uninfluenced by social factors which party they vote